Cho Jae-2014-west-5677 ( December 31, 2014)

It is reasonable to deem that the notice of this case was delivered lawfully to the plaintiff

A lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity shall be deemed to have the burden of proof to the Plaintiff. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the grounds alleged by the Plaintiff and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to acknowledge that only the moving-in report was made without actually residing in the domicile of the Plaintiff or his family at the time of service of the written notice of this case.

2015 old-gu 53902 Action Demanding nullification of Disposition of Transfer Income Tax Imposition

OO

OO Head of the tax office

November 12, 2015

December 03, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

Defendant’s imposition of KRW 201,979,510 for the Plaintiff on June 5, 200, as income tax of 1997.

confirm that the division is null and void.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The OOO-O land and above-ground buildings owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”) were transferred to the OO on March 12, 1997, but the Plaintiff did not report the transfer income tax.

B. Around June 5, 2000, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 201,979,518 of the transfer income tax of the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an appeal against this and filed an appeal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on December 31, 2014 on the grounds that the appeal period was elapsed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 11, 12 (including each number)

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff did not directly transfer the instant real estate, it was impossible to file a transfer income tax return on the grounds that the Plaintiff could not know the transfer of the instant real estate. At the time of serving a tax payment notice on the instant disposition (hereinafter “instant tax payment notice”), the Plaintiff resided in a region where the instant tax payment notice was not registered for the purpose of medical treatment for illness. The Plaintiff’s family members were unable to receive the instant tax payment notice due to the relationship with the Plaintiff’s transfer of resident registration only for his children’s school attendance. The Plaintiff became aware of the instant disposition through the information disclosure procedure in 2014. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was unable to lawfully receive the instant tax payment

B. Determination

1) In an administrative litigation claiming the invalidity of an administrative disposition as a matter of course, the Plaintiff is liable to assert and prove the grounds for invalidity of the administrative disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu6030, Mar. 10, 1992; 9Du11851, Mar. 23, 200). Meanwhile, the service of a notice for tax payment is made to the address, domicile, place of business or office of a title holder pursuant to Article 8(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 6782, Dec. 18, 200; 10 is made by delivery of documents or postal service; 30 is to be made by registered mail; 10 is to be made by a family member at the domicile of the same time when the mail is sent by registered mail (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Du1979, Dec. 13, 197; 200Du96979, Sept. 19, 197).

2) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged as a whole as to the instant case’s health class, Gap evidence Nos. 3-2, 5-3, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 5, and 9 with the overall purport of pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that the instant tax payment notice was sent on or around June 5, 200 and was lawfully served on the plaintiff around that time. The grounds and evidence presented by the plaintiff are insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff did not actually reside in his domicile at the time of the instant tax payment notice, namely, the fact that the Plaintiff or his family members did not actually reside in his domicile at the time of the instant tax payment notice, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Thus, the plaintiff’s assertion is without merit without the need to further examine

① On March 2, 1998, the Plaintiff filed a move-in report with the O-O-O of the O-dong O-dong on September 15, 1998, the O-O-O of the O-dong on November 25, 200, and the O-O of the O-dong on November 25, 200.

② Around June 5, 2000, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff’s registered domicile at the time of the instant tax payment notice to the place where the Plaintiff’s registered domicile was served by registered mail. Then, the details that may be deemed to have been disposed of by return or other impossibility of service are not verified, and it does not appear to have been carried out by the procedure of service by registered mail (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du310, Oct. 2, 2002). Furthermore, the documents pertaining to the delivery of the instant tax payment notice were entirely destroyed after the lapse of five years for the preservation period, and the delivery certificate issued by the Defendant cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant failed to serve the instant tax payment notice on the sole ground that the Defendant did not keep the documents pertaining to the delivery of the instant tax payment notice at the time when one year was not claimed.

③ The Plaintiff asserted that he resided in a place other than the registered domicile at the time when the notice of tax payment of this case was served, but there is no specific assertion or proof as to the person who actually resided in the place where he actually resided and actually resided.

④ The sum of the receipts related to the transfer income tax of this case reaches KRW 353,738,90,00. Of them, some of them appears to have been paid regardless of the procedure of public sale or auction for the real estate owned by the Plaintiff.

⑤ The Plaintiff owned a large number of real estate other than the instant real estate, and was delinquent in paying a large amount of taxes, such as capital gains tax, other than the capital gains tax on the instant real estate. With respect to taxes in arrears, the Plaintiff’s real estate was transferred from 1995 to 2013 as an auction or public sale procedure, and the capital gains tax on such transfer was also imposed from around 2014 to around 2014.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.